.’AM. 

JAPAN 


The  N ew 

Anti- Japanese  Agitation 


A new  anti- Japanese  agitation  has  been  set 
under  way  in  California. 

What  this  agitation  is,  what  the  real  facts  in 
the  situation  are,  and  what  it  means  is  told  in  this 
pamphlet. 

The  agitation  is  a serious  one  because  apart 
from  its  failure  to  solve  the  problems  involved,  it 
strengthens  the  arm  of  the  military  and  autocratic 
powers  in  Japan. 


Sidney  L.  Gulick 

Secretary  of  the 

Commission  on  Relations  with  the  Orient 

of  the 

Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America 

105  East  22d  Street,  New  York  City 

V2 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Columbia  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/newantijapaneseOOguli 


THE  NEW  ANTI-JAPANESE  AGITATION 


For  fifty  years  California  has  been  the  scene  of  repeated 
waves  of  anti-Asiatic  feeling.  During  the  seventies,  eighties 
and  nineties  of  the  last  century  those  waves  of  feeling  were 
directed  against  the  Chinese.  For  two  decades  now  they  have 
been  hurled  against  the  Japanese.  Beginning  in  the  spring  of 
1919  a new  and  especially  virulent  wave  has  been  apparent. 

Before  studying  this  last  recurrence  of  the  periodic  trouble, 
it  will  pay  us  to  look  back  a little  into  history. 

CHINESE  IMMIGRATION 

Chinese  immigration  sprang  up  in  1850  when  nearly  500 
Chinese  arrived  in  California  responding  to  the  “gold  fever”  that 
stirred  the  whole  world.  By  the  end  of  1852  it  was  estimated 
that  some  20,000  to  25,000  were  at  work  in  that  state.  For  a 
few  years  they  were  welcomed.  Their  industry,  cleanliness,  un- 
obtrusiveness, adaptability,  patience  and  readiness  to  turn  to 
every  kind  of  work  even  the  hardest  and  most  disagreeable 
made  them  highly  acceptable  to  all  kinds  of  employers.  Gover- 
nor McDougal  even  recommended  in  1852  a system  of  land 
grants  to  induce  the  further  immigration  and  settlement  of 
Chinese — "one  of  the  most  worthy  of  our  newly  adopted  citi- 
zens.” 

But  before  the  close  of  that  decade  anti-Chinese  feeling  de- 
veloped in  the  mining  regions  and  in  the  cities,  becoming  violent 
m the  seventies.  Race  riots  occurred,  anti-Chinese  legislation 
was  urged,  Congress  began  to  study  the  situation  and  Com- 
mittees of  various  kinds  made  investigations  and  reports.  The 
result  was  a negotiated  change  in  1880  of  the  treaty  of  1868  that 
provided  for  free  immigration,  and  in  1882  the  law  suspending 
Chinese  immigration  for  ten  years  was  enacted.  This  law  was 
re-enacted  twice  and  in  1904,  in  spite  of  the  pledge  of  the  treaty 
to  the  contrary  was  made  absolute  and  permanent. 

During  the  successive  periods  of  anti-Chinese  agitation,  ex- 
pression was  often  given  to  judgments  most  adverse  to  Chinese. 
The  California  Senate  Memorial  to  Congress  (1876)  contains 
this : 

“Impregnable  to  all  the  influences  of  Anglo-Saxon  life,  they  remain 
the  same  stolid  Asiatics  that  have  floated  on  the  rivers  and  slaved  in 
the  fields  of  China  for  thirty  centuries  of  time.  . . . We  thus  find 
one-sixth  of  our  entire  population  composed  of  Chinese  coolies,  not 
involuntary,  but,  by  the  unalterable  structure  of  their  intellectual  being, 
voluntary  slaves.  . . . Is  it  not  possible  that  free  labor,  unable  to 

compete  with  these  foreign  serfs  . , . may  unite  in  all  the  horrors 

of  riot  and  insurrection,  and  defying  the  civil  power,  extirpate  with 
fire  and  sword  those  who  rob  them  of  their  bread,  yet  yield  no  tribute 
to  the  State?” 


3 


And  Frank  M.  Pixley,  representing  the  Municipality  of  San 
Francisco  before  the  Congressional  Committee  of  1876  made  this 
statement : 

“The  Chinese  are  inferior  to  any  race  God  ever  made.  ...  I 
think  there  are  none  so  low.  . . . Their  people  have  got  the  perfection 
of  crimes  of  4,000  years.  . . . The  Divine  Wisdom  has  said  that  He 

would  divide  this  country  and  the  world  as  -a  heritage  of  five  great 
families;  that  to  the  Blacks  He  would  give  Africa;  to  the  Red  Man  He 
would  give  America;  and  Asia  He  would  give  to  the  Yellow  races.  He 
inspired  us  with  the  determination,  not  only  to  have  prepared  our  own 
inheritance,  but  to  have  stolen  from  the  Red  Man,  America;  and  it 
is  now  settled  that  the  Saxon,  American  or  European  groups  of  families, 
the  White  Race,  is  to  have  the  inheritance  of  Europe  and  America 
and  that  the  Yellow  races  are  to  be  confined  to  what  the  Almighty 
originally  gave  them;  and  as  they  are  not  a favored  people,  they  are 
not  to  be  permitted  to  steal  from  us  what  we  have  robbed  the  American 
savage  of.  ...  I believe  that  the  Chinese  have  no  souls  to  save, 
and  if  they  have,  they  are  not  worth  the  saving.” 

The  Scott  Act  of  1888  was  so  drastic  and  so  contrary  to 
the  treaty  that  a test  case  was  made  and  carried  to  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court.  The  judgment  sustained  the  validity  of 
the  law  because  it  was  the  last  act  of  Congress  but  it  was  added : 
“The  question  whether  our  Government  was  justified  in  dis- 
regarding its  engagements  with  another  nation  is  not  one  for 
the  determination  of  the  courts.  . . . This  court  is  not  a 

censor  of  the  morals  of  the  other  departments  of  the  Govern- 
ment.” 

But  a remarkable  change  has  been  taking  place  of  late  in 
California  in  the  attitude  toward  Chinese.  Many  are  beginning 
to  speak  a good  word  for  “John.”  His  fine  qualities  are  being 
appreciated  and  commended.  Whether  or  not  he  has  a soul  to 
save  is  not  the  point — he  has  hands  and  feet  and  a spirit  to  do 
honest  hard  work.  They  begin  to  see  many  good  qualities  in 
him  now.  Some  are  even  proposing  to  import  Chinese  coolies 
by  the  hundred  thousand — to  meet  the  shortage  of  labor. 

JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION 

Large  Japanese  immigration  began  in  1900  as  a result  of 
the  annexation  of  Hawaii.  In  that  one  year  10,000  landed  in 
San  Francisco  and  in  the  following  seven  years  some  40,000 
more  were  admitted  to  Continental  United  States.  Economic 
competition  and  mutual  sharp  practice  led  inevitably  to  ill-will 
and  the  development  of  race  feeling. 

A crisis  was  reached  in  1907.  Californians  were  demanding 
that  the  Chinese  exclusion  laws  be  applied  to  Japanese.  Japan 
wished  to  avoid  the  humiliation  of  such  action,  and  accordingly 
Japan  made  an  arrangement  with  the  United  States  to  stop  all 
new  labor  immigration.  This  is  known  as  the  Gentlemen’s 
Agreement.  Her  faithful  observance  of  that  agreement  has  been 
sufficiently  shown  by  the  writer  in  another  paper.  The  anti- 

4 


Japanese  agitation  subsided  for  a season  but  in  1912-13  was  sud- 
denly revived  by  politicians  on  the  charge  that  Japanese  were  a 
serious  menace  because  they  were  buying  up  all  the  choicest 
agricultural  lands.  The  agitation  led  to  the  enactment  of  the 
“Anti-Alien  Land  Law”  in  1913  which  caused  quite  a strain  in 
international  relations.  Secretary  Bryan  was  sent  to  California 
to  persuade  the  Legislature  and  Governor  Johnson  to  desist. 
That  effort  apparently  aggravated  the  determination  of  Cali- 
fornians to  enact  the  law.  Many  seriously  expected  war  to  fol- 
low between  Japan  and  America. 

Japan  pushed  her  case  diplomatically  but  without  success. 
She  has  steadily  piaintained  that  the  law  violates  the  treaty. 
The  Department  of  State  has  replied  that  if  Japan  thinks  so, 
the  way  to  settle  the  matter  is  to  bring  in  a test  case.  There 
the  matter  rests. 

After  the  law  had  been  passed  it  became  known  that  Jap- 
anese ownership  of  land  in  California  all  told  was  the  trivial 
amount  of  12,726  acres,  out  of  a total  of  27,931,444  acres  of  farm 
lands  of  which  only  11,389,894  had  been  improved. 

THE  NEW  AGITATION 

The  renewed  agitation  began  in  the  spring  of  1919.  The  at- 
tack this  time  is  quite  novel.  The  charge  of  race  inferiority,  so 
vigorous  in  1907  and  1913,  has  been  dropped.  On  the  contrary 
their  essential  equality  is  freely  granted — at  least  in  argument. 
The  charge  now  is  that  they  have  been  entering  in  such  large 
numbers,  have  such  a high  birthrate  and  are  buying  up  such 
large  areas  of  land  in  the  names  of  their  infant  children  that  the 
supremacy  of  the  white  race  on  the  Pacific  Coast  is  seriously 
threatened. 

These  charges  have  been  popularized  and  spread  broadcast 
over  the  Pacific  Coast  by  Mr.  V.  S.  McClatchy,  editor  of  the 
Sacramento  “Bee,”  by  Senator  Inman  and  a group  of  politicians 
in  California.  They  have  been  given  place  and  standing  in  Con- 
gress and  before  the  country  by  Senator  Phelan  of  San  Fran- 
cisco. The  statistics  of  Japanese  births  in  California  are  being 
so  presented  as  to  cause  widespread  belief  and  genuine  anxiety. 

A society  has  been  formed  in  California  to  propagate  these 
ideas  throughout  the  United  States, — “The  California  Oriental 
Exclusion  League.”  In  its  appeal  to  its  constituency  for  funds 
it  says  that  “an  educational  campaign  throughout  the  United 
States”  is  being  prepared  in  order  that  this  “problem  in  its  true 
light  can  be  brought  before  the  people.”  “Able  writers  will 
cover  the  subject  in  all  the  large  magazines  . . . moving 

pictures  will  be  shown  throughout  the  country;  speakers  and 
literature  will  present  the  problem  before  national  conventions.” 

5 


THE  NEW  ANTI-JAPANESE  PROGRAM 

As  on  the  occasion  of  former  waves  of  agitation,  so  now,  a 
program  of  legislation  is  presented  to  the  nation.  The  pro- 
posals are  drastic  and  far-reaching.  Since  they  concern  the 
permanent  relations  of  America  not  only  with  Japan  but  also 
with  China  and  every  other  Asiatic  people,  citizens  of  the 
United  States  should  give  them  careful  consideration.  The  pro- 
gram is  one  that  concerns  us  all.  It  is  not  a peculiarly  or  nar- 
rowly Californian  question. 

The  proposed  remedies  are — 

1.  Cancellation  of  the  “Gentlemen’s  Agreement.” 

2.  Exclusion  of  “picture  brides.” 

3.  Rigorous  exclusion  of  Japanese  as  immigrants. 

4.  Confirmation  and  legalization  of  the  policy  that  Asiatics  shall 
be  forever  barred  from  American  citizenship. 

5.  Amendment  to  Sec.  1,  of  Article  XIV  of  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion providing  that  no  child  born  in  the  United  States  of 
foreign  parents  shall  be  considered  an  American  citizen  unless 
both  parents  are  of  a race  that  is  eligible  to  citizenship. 

Mr.  McClatchy  also  proposed  as  a sixth  item  the  following: 

6.  Provide  such  labor  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  development 
and  prosperity  of  the  country,  and  which  cannot  be  had  here 
or  secured  from  desirable  immigration,  by  bringing  in  Chinese 
for  a fixed  term  of  years,  confining  their  activities  to  certain 
localities  and  certain  industries  so  that  they  cannot  offer  an 
economic  menace  to  American  labor  and  send  them  back  to 
China  when  the  need  for  their  services  has  ceased. 

HEARINGS  IN  WASHINGTON 

The  program  outlined  above  was  presented  to  the  Commit- 
tees on  Immigration  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 
in  September  and  October,  1919.  The  hearings  were  published 
in  due  time  and  furnish  the  autlioritative  statements  of  its  out- 
standing advocates. 

Since  they  propose  a program  of  propaganda  that  cannot 
fail  to  stir  up  bitter  race  feeling  both  here  and  in  Japan  and  a 
course  of  legislation  that  will  surely  strain  American-Japanese 
relations  and  one  also  that  in  the  writer’s  judgment  cannot  fail 
to  be  injurious  to  our  own  country  and  to  California  especially, 
it  is  highly  important  that  Americans  should  study  the  proposals 
with  care.  Are  their  alleged  facts  true  and  their  arguments 
valid? 

CHARGES  AS  TO  JAPAN’S  VIOLATION  OF  THE 
GENTLEMEN’S  AGREEMENT 

Throughout  the  statements  by  Senator  Phelan  and  Mr.  Mc- 
Clatchy the  charge  is  repeatedly  made  that  some  kind  of  new 
legislation  is  needed  because  Japan  has  “grossly  violated”  the 

6 


Gentlemen’s  Agreement.  The  writer  has  examined  this  charge 
with  some  care  and  has  presented  the  detailed  discussion  in 
another  paper.  Here,  therefore,  he  may  merely  summarize  by 
saying  that  the  charge  is  not  supported  by  facts.  It  is  true  that 
Japanese  population  in  California  has  increased  while  that  of 
the  Chinese  has  decreased.  That  fact,  however,  does  not  prove 
Japan’s  violation  of  the  “Agreement.”  It  only  shows  that  Jap- 
anese immigrants,  like  European  immigrants,  bring  their  wives 
and  children  after  them  and  not  like  Chinese  coolies  who  have 
been  content  to  labor  on  for  decades  without  their  families.  For 
convincing  statistical  disproof  of  the  charges  the  reader  is  re- 
ferred to  the  paper  referred  to. 

A careful  study,  however,  of  the  statements  by  the  two  chief 
advocates  of  the  program  for  drastic  anti-Japanese  legislation 
shows  that  they  make  many  wild  assertions  wholly  unjustified 
by  facts.  Their  allegations  as  to  Japanese  population  in  Cali- 
fornia, and  in  the  United  States,  as  to  the  Japanese  birthrate, 
as  to  the  “Picture  Bride”  movement  and  as  to  the  non-assimil- 
ability  of  the  Japanese,  are  so  wide  from  the  facts  that  the  argu- 
ment for  their  legislative  program  falls  entirely  to  pieces. 

ALLEGED  INCREASE  OF  JAPANESE  POPULATION 
IN  CALIFORNIA 

“Since  the  ‘Gentlemen’s  Agreement’  was  adopted  in  1907 
the  Japanese  population  in  California  has  increased  by  50,000 
, most  of  that  50,000  are  laborers.”  (House  Hearings, 
p.  247.)  That  Mr.  McClatchy  is  speaking  about  increase  by 
immigration  is  clear,  for  he  says  they  are  “laborers.”  None  of 
the  children  born  in  California  since  1907  can  yet  be  considered 
“laborers.”  What  now  are  the  facts? 

The  total  arrivals  in  Continental  United  States  between  July 
1,  1907  and  June  30,  1919  were  89,282,  while  the  total  departures 
were  73,566.  Increase  by  immigration  therefore  for  the  period 
to  which  Mr.  McClatchy  refers  was  15,715.  This,  however, 
deals  with  the  entire  area  of  Continental  United  States.  It  is 
not  probable  that  more  than  10,000  of  this  number  settled  in 
California.  His  figure  is  therefore  five  times  too  great,  a rather 
serious  discrepancy. 

But  are  these  10,000  “mostly  laborers”?  Mr.  Caminetti 
informed  the  Senate  Committee  on  Immigration  that  between 
1909  and  1919,  the  number  of  Japanese  males  who  left  the 
United  States  (including  Hawaii)  exceeded  those  who  arrived 
by  13,579.  (Senate  Hearings,  p.  31.)  The  10,000,  therefore, 
must  be  mostly  women — “wives.”  Mr.  McClatchy  evidently  is 
not  well  posted  on  the  situation. 


7 


EXAGGERATIONS  AS  TO  JAPANESE  POPULATION 
IN  CALIFORNIA 

Japanese  population  in  California,  Mr.  McClatchy  repeatedly 
states,  is  100,000.  (House  Hearings,  pp.  257  and  278.)  What 
are  the  facts? 

The  Census  of  1910  shows  that  the  total  Japanese  popula- 
tion in  California  was  41,356.  The  Annual  Reports  of  the 
Commissioner  General  of  Immigration  (Table  A)  show  that 
the  increase  of  population  in  Continental  United  States  by  im- 
migration between  July  1,  1910  and  June  30,  1919  was  15,966. 
Of  these  we  may  safely  assume  that  not  more  than  10,000  set- 
tled in  California.  According  to  the  Biennial  Report  of  the 
California  State  Board  of  Health  Japanese  children  born  in 
California  between  July  1,  1910,  and  June  30,  1919,  was  27,787 
(births  for  1919  estimated  at  4,700).  Making  allowances  for 
deaths  both  of  the  children  born  in  California  (4,208)  and  of 
those  Japanese  recorded  in  the  Census  of  1910,  and  of  the  arrivals 
since  1910  (not  definitely  calculable),  we  shall  not  be  far  astray 
if  we  say  that  the  total  population  of  California  in  July,  1919,  is 
approximately  72,000  or  73,000,  somewhat  less  than  Mr.  Mc- 
Clatchy’s  assertions. 

Mr.  McClatchy’s  constant  insistence  moreover  on  the  steady 
inflow  of  10,000  to  12,000  immigrants  annually  (ibid.,  p.  247) 
into  the  United  States  is  quite  misleading  because  he  ignores 
the  large  fraction  that  goes  to  Hawaii  and  also  the  6,000  to  8,000 
annual  departures. 

EXAGGERATIONS  AS  TO  JAPANESE  POPULATION 
IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

Japanese  population  in  Continental  United  States  is  repeat- 
edly affirmed  to  be  150,000  (pp.  257  and  278).  But  what  are 
the  facts?  The  Census  shows  that  in  1910  the  number  of  Jap- 
anese in  Continental  United  States,  both  alien  and  American- 
born,  numbered  72,157.  The  increase  by  immigration  to  June 
30,  1919,  was  15,966.  The  Census  for  1910  shows  that  the  number 
of  Japanese  children  five  years  old  and  under  in  Continental 
United  States  exceeded  those  in  California  by  42  per  cent.  As- 
suming that  the  ratio  still  holds,  the  increase  of  Japanese  chil- 
dren for  the  period  1911-1919,  making  no  allowance  for  those 
children  who  will  have  returned  to  Japan,  will  be  approximately 
33,487.  This  gives  a total  of  121,605,  without  allowing  for  deaths 
during  the  nine  years  among  the  original  number  (72,157)  nor 
among  those  added  by  immigration  (15,966).  The  true  figure 
for  the  Japanese  population  in  1919  therefore  is  probably  some- 
where between  115,000  and  120,000.  This  again  is  slightly  less 
than  the  number  claimed  by  Mr.  McClatchy. 

8 


THE  ALLEGED  SIXFOLD  INCREASE  IN  JAPANESE 
POPULATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

“Since  1900  Japanese  population  in  the  United  States  has 
increased  sixfold”  (Senate  Hearing,  p.  35;  House  Hearing,  p. 
243).  This  assertion  is  repeatedly  made  by  Mr.  McClatchy  and 
others  as  though  it  were  a significant  and  ominous  fact.  To 
prove  the  charge,  Japanese  population  in  the  United  States  in 
1900  is  first  given  which  according  to  the  United  States  Census 
is  24,326,  and  then  it  is  compared  with  the  alleged  present  Jap- 
anese population — 150,000.  The  relation  of  150,000  to  24,3^  is 
indeed  sixfold. 

The  argument,  however,  is  utterly  pointless,  for  the  Gen- 
tlement’s  Agreement  did  not  get  into  full  working  order  till  the 
fiscal  year  beginning  July  1,  1908.  Since  that  date  up  to  June  30, 
1919,  the  total  increase  of  Japanese  population  by  immigration 
was  only  10,968,*  most,  if  not  all,  of  whom  were  women  and 
children.  The  Japanese  population  in  Continental  United  States 
July  1,  1908,  was  approximately  77,000  and  is  at  present  as  we 
have  already  seen  less  than  120,000,  an  increase,  at  the  maximum 
of  55  per  cent,  for  a true  comparison,  instead  of  600  per  cent  as 
Mr.  McClatchy  proclaims— for  his  unfair  comparison. 

THE  “ALARMING”  JAPANESE  BIRTHRATE 

The  backbone,  however,  of  the  anti-Japanese  arguments  as 
to  the  Japanese  menace  is  the  alleged  extraordinary  birthrate. 
This  is  declared  to  be  “five  times  greater  than  that  of  the  whites” 
(ibid.,  p.  252-279).  Mr.  McClatchy  does  not  state  the  exact 
birthrate  of  either  Japanese  or  Whites,  but  from  the  figures  given 
in  regard  to  births  and  population  in  Sacramento,  of  Japanese 
and  of  Whites,  the  white  birthrate  is  apparently  14.3  per  1,000. 
Five  times  this  would  make  Japanese  birthrate  71.5  per  1,000. 
If  the  figures  for  the  white  births  are  correct,  the  Sacramento 
whites  are  committing  race  suicide.  The  birthrate  of  the  United 
States  is  about  24  per  thousand  and  that  of  France  18 — while 
that  of  Sacramento  is  only  14,  if  Mr.  McClatchy’s  figures  are 
really  correct. 

These  reckonings,  however,  are  quite  illusive  as  they  ignore 
many  important  facts  as  to  the  make-up  of  the  white  and  Jap- 
anese populations  in  California.  Among  the  former  are  many 
old  persons  and  children  in  their  ’teens  and  also  large  numbers 
of  retired  people  of  means  from  the  eastern  states.  Each  of 

* The  apparent  discrepancy  between  the  figures  of  this  paragraph 
and  those  of  the  second  paragraph  above  is  due  to  the  fact  that  during 
the  two  years  between  July  1,  1908,  and  June  30,  1910,  Japanese  emigra- 
tion exceeded  immigration  by  4,998.  The  Japanese  population  in  Con- 
tinental United  States  accordingly  was  greater  in  the  summer  of  1908 
by  about  5,000  than  it  was  when  the  census  was  taken  in  1910. 

9 


these  factors  tends  to  produce  a low  white  birthrate.  Among  the 
Japanese  on  the  other  hand  are  few  if  any  old  persons,  and 
relatively  few  children  in  their  ’teens,  Japanese  families  being 
at  the  stage  of  highest  productivity.  The  vast  majority  of  the 
wives  are  between  20  and  30  years  of  age.  These  facts  com- 
pletely vitiate  the  assertions  as  to  Japanese  birthrate. 

If  the  Japanese  population  in  California  were  in  fact  what 
the  agitators  say,  100,000 — then  the  birthrate  in  1918  was  43.6 
per  thousand.  This,  however,  is  less  than  the  birthrate  of  the 
immigration  population  in  Massachusetts  in  1910.  That  rate 
was  49.1.  If  the  Japanese  population  in  California  in  1918  was 
about  70,000  then  the  Japanese  birthrate  was  approximately  63 
per  thousand.  This  rate  is  no  doubt  high.  But  this  is  natural 
because  of  the  peculiar  age  character  of  the  group.  High  birth- 
rates have  been  recognized  as  holding  among  every  group  of 
recent  immigrants. 

To  make  a scientific  comparison  of  Japanese  and  white 
birthrate,  since  the  Japanese  women  are  almost  entirely  in  their 
twenties,  we  should  compare  with  them  white  married  women 
of  that  age.  Unforunately,  such  figures  are  not  available. 

Since  a valid  comparison  of  Japanese  and  white  birthrates 
in  California  is  impracticable,  it  may  be  well  to  ask  as  to  the 
Japanese  birthrate  in  Japan.  Between  1889  and  1913  official 
statistics  show  that  the  rate  varied  between  28.6  and  33.7  per 
thousand.  The  birthrate  for  twenty-seven  different  countries 
from  1881  to  1910  is  given  in  the  American  Year  Book  for  1915 
(p.  712).  The  rates  vary  from  41.7  to  19.6.  Japan  stands  thir- 
teenth in  the  list. 

ALLEGATIONS  AS  TO  PICTURE  BRIDES 

Both  Senator  Phelan  and  Mr.  McClatchy  are  especially 
vigorous  in  attacking  the  “picture  brides”  brought  over  as  they 
say  for  “breeding  purposes”  in  order  to  violate  the  California 
law  as  to  land  ownership  (ibid.,  pp.  190-191  and  250-251). 

In  the  first  place  they  greatly  exaggerate  their  number — 
they  say  20,323  in  the  last  five  years.  Senator  Phelan  specified 
that  of  this  number  6,864  landed  at  Hawaii,  and  13,913  in  Con- 
tinental United  States. 

As  a matter  of  fact,  as  the  writer  has  shown  in  detail  in  his 
article  on  “Japan’s  Faithful  Observance  of  the  Gentlemen’s 
Agreement,”  the  total  number  of  “Picture  Brides”  admitted  to 
San  Francisco  and  Seattle  during  the  years  1915-1919  was  3,846. 
The  total  number  of  “wives,”  including  the  “brides,”  admitted 
to  Continental  United  States  during  those  same  years  was  13,563. 

And  in  the  next  place  they  are  wholly  in  error  as  to  the  rate 
at  which  these  alleged  “picture  brides”  have  children.  They 
assert  that  “one  every  year”  is  the  plan  and  practice.  But  what 
are  the  facts.  If  we  ignore  all  the  women  in  California  before 

10 


1909  and  allow  that  two-thirds  of  all  the  “wives”  admitted  to  the 
United  States  since  1909  settled  in  California  and  then  estimate 
that  each  has  a baby  every  year,  Japanese  babies  for  1918  should 
have  been  14,068  and  for  1919 — 16,195.  The  recorded  births  in 
1918  numbered  4,365,  while  even  Mr.  McQatchy  does  not  esti- 
mate more  than  5,000  for  1919. 

These  figures  illustrate  the  amazing  absurdities  into  which 
agitators  fall  when  they  rely  on  imagination  for  their  figures 
instead  of  holding  fast  to  solid  facts. 

ALLEGATIONS  AS  TO  JAPANESE  OWNERSHIP  OF 
LAND  IN  CALIFORNIA 

From  the  descriptions  of  the  Japanese  aggression  (e,  g., 
ibid.,  pp.  258-259),  one  would  suppose  that  Japanese  are  taking 
actual  possession  of  vast  areas  of  land.  “The  Japanese  are 
rapidly  securing  control  of  everything.”  “We  have  already 
25,000  native-born  Japanese  in  California  entitled  to  hold  land 
through  guardians  and  the  number  is  being  increased  each  year 
by  4,000  or  5,000”  (p.  260). 

The  question  naturally  arises  as  to  how  many  parents  are 
actually  purchasing  land  in  the  names  of  their  infant  children? 
Is  it  not  remarkable  that  neither  Mr.  McClatchy  nor  any  one 
else  gives  a single  concrete  statistical  statement?  They  know 
there  are  some — but  to  make  the  picture  as  effective  as  possible 
they  conjure  up  the  whole  possibility.  When  the  Japanese  scare 
of  1913  was  staged  it  was  stated  that  Japanese  were  purchasing 
all  the  best  agricultural  lands  in  California.  The  charge  led 
to  the  enactment  of  the  Anti-Alien  Land  law  of  that  year.  It 
later  became  known,  as  already  noted,  that  the  total  amount 
bought  by  Japanese  up  to  that  date  was  12,726  acres  owned  by 
331  persons. 

But  what  is  the  situation  today?  According  to  Japanese 
figures  Japanese  now  [1918]  own  527  farms  totaling  29,105 
acres.  Apparently,  out  of  the  families  having,  as  alleged  25,000 
children  and  over,  some  196  have  availed  themselves  of  the  op- 
portunity to  buy  land  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the 
laws,  and  they  have  actually  bought  16,379  acres!  ! Until  the 
anti-Japanese  agitators  bring  forward  more  appalling  statistics 
than  these,  it  surely  ought  to  be  difficult  to  get  the  whole  coun- 
try into  a fever  of  excitement  over  this  question. 

THE  FAMOUS  TOWN  OF  FLORIN 

“Today  there  isn’t  a single  one  of  those  5 and  10-acre  pieces 
of  land  that  isn’t  in  the  hands  of  Japanese.  The  whites  have 
melted  away.  Several  years  ago  there  was  a newspaper  of 
Sacramento  delivered  to  the  white  people  in  carts.  Today  there 
isn't  a white  person  to  deliver  it  to”  (ibid.,  p.  258).  “Today 

11 


there  is  not  a single  white  family  or  person  in  that  strawberry 
district”  (S.  H.,  p.  48). 

These  startling  assertions  are  made  in  regard  to  Florin 
situated  some  eight  or  nine  miles  south  of  Sacramento. 

The  writer  enjoys  the  acqaintance  of  two  correspondents 
in  Florin,  both  American  citizens  and  both  well  acquainted  with 
the  Japanese  there.  One  of  them,  a vineyardist,  one  of  the  “old 
residents,”  replying  to  my  question  regarding  the  accuracy  of 
Mr.  McClatchy’s  assertions  wrote: 

“I  cannot  account  for  statements  of  this  kind  because  they  are  not 
fact.  It  is  true  that  the  ‘Bee’  (of  which  Mr.  McClatchy  is  an  editor) 
carrier  only  covers  a small  portion  of  the  route  where  formerly  de- 
liveries were  made— all  this,  however,  was  before  the  days  of  Rural  Free 
Delivery.  If  I were  to  say  that  a couple  of  hundred  copies  of  the 
different  Sacramento  papers,  including  the  ‘Bee’  were  now  delivered 
on  the  four  R.  F.  D.  routes  in  the  Florin  district,  I am  sure  I would 
be  far  inside  the  figures. 

“The  statement  is  so  often  made  that  the  Japanese  send  all  their 
money  home  that  many  people  believe  it.  I can  only  say  in  refutation 
of  this  that  I know  them  to  be  extravagant  buyers  of  all  classes  of 
goods.  Today  hardly  a Japanese  strawberry  or  grape  grower  in  this 
vicinity  that  does  not  possess  an  automobile,  high-priced  at  that,  and 
I hadn’t  noticed  a Japanese  manufacturer’s  name  on  them  either.’’ 

My  other  correspondent,  also  a vineyardist,  writes  as  follows : 

“The  ‘Sacramento  Union’  this  morning  had  a stab  about  the  Jap- 
anese at  Florin.  ...  I asked  the  editor,  Mr.  Allen,  if  he  had  ever 
been  to  Florin  and  when  he  replied  in  the  negative  I told  him  I would 
like  to  take  him  out  there  and  show  him  how  the  Japanese  had  made 
Florin  and  how  it  was  prospering.  . . . He  said  it  would  do  no 

good,  that  he  would  rather  the  land  would  lie  fallow  a hundred  years 
than  to  have  an  Oriental  touch  it.  ...  I find  the  people  most 
opposed  to  the  Japanese  are  those  that  live  in  the  city.  . . They 

think  the  high  cost  of  food  means  the  farmer  is  getting  rich  and  the 
Japanese  agriculturist  should  be  extirpated.  ...  At  Florin  the 

feeling  toward  the  Japanese  is  better  than  it  was  in  1913.  Mr.  

says  ...  no  white  race  could  take  their  place.  Mr.  — , man- 
ager of  the  , is  emphatically  in  favor  of  them  and  deplores 

the  agitation  now  being  made.  Neither  of  these  men  were  ready  to 
Speak  in  1913  as  they  speak  now.  . . . San  Francisco  capital  has 

come  into  Florin  and  a $10,000  factory  and  packing  house  is  being 
erected.  This  last  summer  the  Florin  Fruit  Growers  Association  erected 
a $10,000  loading  and  storage  house  and  they  are  planning  to  invest 
as  much  more  in  a basket  factory.  Three  years  ago  W.  O.  Davies 
erected  a $12,000  packing  and  loading  house.  So  you  can  readily  see 
the  Japanese  have  not  blighted  Florin.  . The  Japanese  have 

had  a successful  fruit  season  and  are  spending  lavishly  in  automobiles, 
phonographs,  better  homes  and  furnishings.’’ 

Perhaps,  however,  a few  statistics  from  the  Florin  region 
will  make  still  more  evident  the  extraordinary  character  of 
the  assertions  that  the  whites  have  completely  “melted  away” 
and  that  there  remains  “not  a single  white  family  or  person  in 
that  strawberry  district.”  Statistics  have  recently  been  pub- 
lished giving  results  of  a “school  census”  in  the  thirty-three 
Sacramento  county  school  districts,  outside  of  Sacramento  City. 

12 


It  showed  that  there  were  1,084  Japanese  children  under  21 
years  of  age  of  whom  669  were  under  six.  No  figures  of  the 
white  children  were  published. 

In  response,  however,  to  a personal  letter,  we  learn  that 
the  number  of  white  children  in  the  six  districts  constituting 
the  “Florin  strawberry”  area  is  517  under  21,  of  whom  209  are 
under  six,  whereas  in  those  same  six  districts  the  corresponding 
figures  for  the  Japanese  were  530  and  292.  Evidently  in  those 
six  school  districts,  where  Mr.  McClatchy  says  “not  a white 
family  is  left”  there  are  several  hundred — apparently  about  one- 
half  of  the  population  is  white. 

THE  JAPANESE  “MENACE” 

“The  opposition  to  Japanese  immigration  on  the  part  of 
those  who  have  studied  it  is  not  based  on  racial  prejudice,  but 
on  unanswerable  economic  grounds.  . . . The  Japanese 

easily  drive  the  whites  out  of  any  community  in  which  the  two 
civilizations  meet  in  economic  competition”  (ibid.,  p.  275). 

“I  will  be  glad  to  demonstrate  to  the  satisfaction  of  this 
Committee  that  the  Japanese  is  an  undesirable,  both  as  a citizen 
and  as  an  immigrant  the  most  undesirable  of  all  Asiatics. 

The  reason  for  that  is  not  a racial  prejudice”  (S.  H.,  p.  33). 

What  then  are  the  economic  reasons?  Are  they  undesirable 
because  they  are  lazy?  Licentious?  Diseased?  Shiftless? 
Quarrelsome?  Ignorant?  Lawless?  Criminal?  Not  at  all. 
Indeed  they  are  quite  the  reverse.  “The  reasons  are  compli- 
mentary rather  than  otherwise,”  says  Mr.  McClatchy.  The  Jap- 
anese “has  energy  and  ambition.  He  will  work  very  long  hours. 
He  will  work  for  low  wages  at  first.  He  has  co-operation,  which 
is  greater,  you  might  say,  than  in  any  of  our  labor  unions”  (S. 
H.,  pp.  33-34).  “He  is  sober  and  industrious;  he  is  generally 
law-abiding.  He  has  respect  for  his  superiors  and  parents.  So 
far  as  police  records  go  the  cities  don’t  have  trouble  with  Jap- 
anese. . . . They  are  very  industrious.  They  work  very 

long  hours  for  very  little  pay  when  necessary  and  they  have 
absolute  co-operation”  (House  Hearings,  p.  253). 

Now  all  these  qualities  would  certainly  tend  to  prove  the 
Japanese  a most  valuable  immigrant  and  citizen  should  he  be 
permitted  to  naturalize. 

What  then  is  the  ground  of  objection?  “The  combination 
of  these  qualities  makes  him  an  economic  machine  against  which 
it  is  hopeless  for  the  white  race  to  compete”  (S.  H.,  p.  34). 
“The  objections  are  that  they  are  non-assimilable.  They  don’t 
intermarry  and  we  wouldn’t  want  them  to  intermarry.  The 
Japanese  is  always  a Japanese”  (H.  H.,  p.  253).  “The  Japanese 
are  rapidly  securing  control  of  everything”  (p.  259).  “The  whites 
have  melted  away”  (p.  258).  “The  Japanese  carefully  select  the 
locality,  the  industries  and  conditions  which  wfill  enable  them 

13 


to  make  the  most  profit  and  so  by  competition  they  gradually 
drive  the  whites  out.  They  go  in  as  wage  earners  and  under- 
bid white  labor  and  after  they  have  driven  white  labor  out,  the 
price  is  raised.  After  that  they  insist  on  leasing  and  ownership 
and  control  of  business,  and  they  get  it.  And  they  get  it  sim- 
ply by  their  concentrated  method  of  operating”  (p.  257). 

In  support  of  these  general  assertions  a few  localities  are 
cited  such  as  Florin  (p.  258),  Sacramento  Valley  (p.  259),  Im- 
perial Valley  (p.  259),  Hood  River  district  (Oregon)  (p.  259). 

Statistics  are  presented  with  regard  to  various  lines  of  agri- 
cultural produce.  The  fact  that  Japanese  raise  “90  per  cent  of 
the  strawberries,  and  cantaloups,  80  per  cent  of  the  onions,  as- 
paragus, tomatoes,  celery,  lettuce  and  cut  flowers,  55  per  cent 
of  cabbage  and  seed,  10  per  cent  of  grape  fruit  and  rice”  (ibid., 
p.  259)  is  cited  as  showing  that  the  Japanese  are  driving  the 
whites  out  of  agriculture. 

“All  the  money  these  people  make,”  says  Senator  Phelan, 
and  they  are  making  money  all  the  time — goes  to  Japan.  They 
control  many_of  our  crops.  That  money  does  not  circulate 
among  the  various  trades  and  industries  percolating  back  to  its 
original  source  . . . but  it  goes  from  the  Japanese  producer 

who  takes  it  out  of  the  soil,  to  the  Japanese  middleman,  to  the 
Japanese  storekeeper,  to  the  Japanese  banker  and  thence  back 
to  Japan”  (ibid.,  p.  189). 

Are  these  and  many  similar  sweeping  assertions  literally 
true?  Can  they  be  accepted  as  they  stand?  If  not  literally  true, 
are  they  nevertheless  substantially  true? 

The  writer  does  not  doubt  that  there  are  certain  areas 
where  Japanese  constitute  the  majority  of  the  population,  also 
that  certain  crops  are  predominantly  raised  by  Japanese.  It 
is  quite  probable  that  in  those  lines  of  intensive  agriculture  for 
which  Japanese  are  peculiarly  fitted  by  stature,  manual  dex- 
terity and  remarkable  patience,  white  men  cannot  easily  com- 
pete with  them,  such  as  the  cultivation  of  strawberries,  celery, 
asparagus,  seeds,  onions,  tomatoes  and  the  like. 

It  sounds  rather  strange,  however,  for  Senator  Phelan  to 
say  that  Japanese  control  the  potato  crop,  when  they  raise  only 
20.8  per  cent  of  it,  or  the  bean  crop,  of  which  they  produce  only 
13  per  cent. 

The  general  reply  to  be  made  to  the  above  sweeping  asser- 
tions of  the  anti-Japanese  critics  is  to  ask  for  accurate  statistics. 
It  will  then  be  manifest  that  the  critics  are  dealing  in  sensational 
exaggerations,  not  with  sober  facts. 

To  meet  the  charge  that  Japanese  take  complete  possession 
of  whatever  they  touch,  attention  may  be  called  to  the  fact 
that  according  to  the  statistics,  they  raise  only  13  per  cent  of 
the  grapes,  23  per  cent  of  the  green  vegetable,  16  per  cent  of 
the  rice,  10  per  cent  of  the  cotton  and  4 per  cent  of  the  fruits 
and  nuts.  These  figures  are  not  100  per  cent  as  they  should  be. 

14 


It  may  be  well  to  note  also  that  although  whites  in  Cali- 
fornia are  cultivating  some  12,000,000  acres,  Japanese  cultivate 
only  about  366,000  (vegetable  and  fruit  intensive  farming  vs. 
extensive  farming) — of  which  they  own  a paltry  30,000.  More- 
over. the  total  Japanese  population  devoted  to  agriculture  was 
in  1918.  according  to  Japanese  consular  statements,  approxi- 
mately 38,000  (of  whom  about  8,000  were  children),  while 
30,000  more  were  in  the  towns  and  cities.  The  total  population 
of  California  is  about  3,200,000. 

These  cold  facts  make  a sober  student  of  the  situation  feel 
that  the  anti-Japanese  critics  are  a bit  hysterical  in  their  sweep- 
ing assertions. 


LIVINGSTON 

Livingston  is  a town  where  Japanese  Christians  some  years 
ago  established  a “colony”  entirely  Japanese.  Their  manner  of 
life  and  relations  to  their  American  neighbor  completely  re- 
futes the  sweeping  assertions  that  a Japanese  is  inevitably  a 
menace.  An  important  resident  of  Livingston,  an  American 
citizen,  has  recently  sent  the  writer  the  following  letter.  Every 
sentence  adds  a new  idea  and  is  worthy  of  quotation  in  full. 

"The  Japanese  residents  of  this  community  are  of  rather  a high 
class,  all  of  them  well  educated,  owning  their  own  farms  for  the  most 
part,  having  purchased  most  of  them  previous  to  August  10,  1913,  at 
which  time  the  California  Alien  Land  Act  went  into  effect. 

“They  occupy  a section  of  territory  pretty  much  to  themselves, 
having  secured  the  land  in  a body  and  colonized  it,  developing  it  to 
fruits  and  vines,  principally.  They  have  proven  themselves  to  be  de- 
sirable citizens,  sober,  honest  and  industrious. 

“They  do  not  lower  the  standard  of  living,  being  ambitious  to  own 
and  to  live  in  just  as  good  houses  as  their  neighbors,  to  wear  just  as 
good  clothes  and  drive  just  as  good  horses  and  automobiles. 

“They  pay  just  as  high  wages  as  others  in  the  community  and 
employ,  very  largely,  labor  of  other  nationalities. 

“I  do  not  believe  that  the  Japanese  such  as  we  have  here  drive 
out  desirable  white  citizens.  As  all  good  farmers  do,  of  whatever 
nationality,  they  take  the  place  of  unsuccessful  farmers  at  times. 

“As  to  their  being  good  citizens,  I cannot  speak  too  highly  of  the 
patriotism  of  the  local  Japanese.  In  every  Liberty  Loan  Drive,  Red 
Cross  Drive,  War  Savings  Stamp  Drive,  Y.  M.  C.  A.  Drive,  and  all  of 
the  various  drives  undertaken  during  the  war  these  people  did  more 
than  their  share.  They  did  not  have  to  be  solicited  in  this  connection, 
but  sent  their  own  representative  to  ascertain  what  was  expected  of 
them  in  each  case  and  then  went  that  one  better. 

“They  have  their  own  church  and  kindergarten,  where  their  children 
are  taught  the  English  language  before  entering  the  Public  School. 
They  have  their  own  Protestant  pastor  and  hold  regular  Christian 
services  in  their  church. 

“In  view  of  the  mass  of  misinformation  which  is  being  circulated 
in  this  connection,  I am  glad  to  be  able  to  say  something  in  justice, 
on  the  other  side. 

“If  there  is  any  other  service  I can  render  in  this  connection,  please 
call  on  me.” 


15 


It  may  not  be  known  that  Japanese  in  California  invested 
in  Liberty  Loan  Bonds  to  the  extent  of  $2,648,800  beside  making 
generous  responses  to  the  Red  Cross,  Y.  M.  C.  A.  and  other 
appeals.  Did  any  other  recently  admitted  immigrants  of  equal 
numbers  do  as  well? 

CALIFORNIA’S  PROSPERITY  AND  JAPANESE  LABOR 

It  would  not  be  a very  difficult  matter  for  a person  who 
knows  the  facts  to  show  that  California’s  prosperity  since  1850 
has  been  materially  augmented  by  the  labor  of  Chinese  and 
Japanese.  Their  presence  has  not  kept  out  workers  of  other 
races,  and  the  values  they  have  created  by  their  work  on  roads, 
railroads  and  in  breaking  in  new  farm  lands  must  be  very  large 
indeed.  It  is  hard  to  imagine  what  California  would  have  been 
today  had  she  never  employed  any  Chinese  or  Japanese  labor. 

Present  day  critics  little  appreciate  how  important  is  the 
contribution  made  today  by  the  40,000  to  50.000  industrious 
Japanese  workers.  Take  for  instance  the  single  item  of  land 
rentals.  All  agree  that  Japanese  are  willing  to  pay  high  rates. 
If  they  average  $50  per  acre  annually,  the  stream  of  gold  flowing 
into  the  hands  of  California  landowners  for  rentals  approximates 
$16,500,000  each  year.  That  sum  certainly  does  not  go  into 
Japanese  banks  and  “back  to  Japan”!  Japanese  also  are  good 
purchasers  of  automobiles,  of  house  furniture  and  victrolas,  of 
fertilizers  for  their  field,  of  agricultural  implements  and  of  per- 
sonal clothing.  A considerable  part  of  the  produce,  moreover, 
which  Japanese  raise  is  transported  by  American  railroads,  and 
handled  by  white  labor. 

In  all  these  respects  it  cannot  be  denied  that  Japanese 
make  good  immigrants. 

CAPTIOUS  CRITICISM 

When  an  impartial  student  begins  to  examine  the  criticism 
directed  against  the  Japanese,  most  of  it  is  felt  to  be  utterly 
captious.  Other  immigrants  who  desire  to  invest  their  earn- 
ings in  land  are  commended,  while  the  Japanese  are  condemned. 
Yet  they  are  also  condemned  if  they  send  their  earnings  back 
to  Japan.  We  forbid  Japanese  from  becoming  naturalized  citi- 
zens, yet  we  condemn  them  because  they  do  not  become  citizens. 
Immigrants  of  other  peoples  we  praise  when  they  bring  their 
families  and  settle  down.  Japanese  are  condemned  for  doing  that 
very  same  thing. 

A careful  examination  of  everything  stated  by  anti-Jap- 
anese  agitators  and  their  spokesmen  before  the  Senate  and 
House  Committees  on  Immigration  does  not  disclose  a single 

16 


item  of  evidence  that  Japanese  would  not  make  good  and  loyal 
citizens  if  they  were  allowed  to  naturalize. 

SOME  OBSERVATIONS 

1.  So  far  as  Japanese  are  superior  in  economic  efficiency — 
raise  larger  crops  per  acre,  pay  larger  rentals  and  increase  the 
land  values,  they  are  an  asset  and  are  not  a menace. 

2.  So  far  as  they  have  the  good  economic  qualities  ascribed 
to  them  they  are  in  those  respects  good  immigrants  and  have 
the  making  of  good  citizens. 

3.  So  far  as  Japanese  combine  in  exclusive  Japanese  eco- 
nomic groups  to  compete  with  similar  non-Japanese  groups, 
they  are  doing  what  every  European  race  group  coming  to 
America  has  done,  e.  g.,  the  Irish,  Italians,  Greeks,  Russians, 
etc.  The  question  naturally  arises  whether  Americans  have 
tried  co-operation.  Is  Japanese  exclusiveness  due  at  all  to 
American  exclusiveness? 

4.  As  for  whites  moving  out  of  a district  when  Japanese 
move  in — that  has  occurred  in  every  part  of  the  United  States 
when  a new  immigration  group  arrives  in  a given  locality  in 
large  numbers. 

5.  So  far  as  Japanese  seek  to  turn  every  economic  factor 
to  their  own  advantage,  that  is  human  nature,  of  which  the 
whites  too  are  not  wholly  lacking. 

6.  So  far  as  Japanese  accept  low  wages  at  first  and  are 
willing  to  work  long  hours  in  order  to  get  an  economic  start, 
and  later  force  higher  wages  as  they  find  opportunity,  those  are 
characteristics  of  every  class  or  race  that  has  come  to  America. 

7.  Free  or  even  large  immigration  from  Japan  might  in- 
deed in  a few  decades  result  in  a serious  menace  to  the  white 
population  especially  if  the  policy  of  race  jealousy,  prejudice  and 
unfriendly  competition  were  steadily  cultivated  of  the  type  mani- 
fested by  the  present  anti-Japanese  agitators.  The  writer  has  for 
years  advocated  a substitute  for  the  Gentlemen’s  Agreement, 
a measure  that  will  secure  rigid  restriction  on  an  equitable  basis. 

8.  Japanese  ownership  of  29,105  acres,  and  leasing  of 
336,721  acres  for  agricultural  purposes  can  hardly  be  a serious 
menace  in  a state  having  some  ten  to  fifteen  million  acres  of  as 
yet  undeveloped  agricultural  lands. 

9.  The  charge  that  the  Japanese  “doesn’t  make  a good 
citizen  and  apparently  doesn’t  want  to  make  a good  citizen” 
(p.  255)  is  a mere  charge — without  evidence.  So  long  as  the 
laws  of  naturalization  are  interpreted  in  a way  to  deny  them 
citizenship  how  can  they  be  expected  to  make  good  citizens, 
and  how  can  they  be  justly  condemned  for  not  becoming  such? 
The  irrational  character  of  this  criticism  is  almost  inconceivable. 

17 


As  a matter  of  fact,  of  the  immigrants  that  come  from  various 
countries,  few  give  better  promise  of  becoming  better  or  more 
loyal  citizens  than  do  the  Japanese.  The  evidence  is  abundant 
that  not  a few  Japanese  who  have  resided  in  America  ten  to  a 
dozen  or  even  a score  of  years,  earnestly  desire  to  become  Ameri- 
can citizens.  There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  they  would 
make  the  very  best  of  citizens,  excelling  in  loyalty,  if  we  were 
to  meet  them  half  way. 

THE  REAL  SITUATION 

The  discussions  thus  far  have  shown  conclusively  that  Mr. 
McClatchy  and  his  co-agitators  make  use  of  unscientific  statistics 
and  sensational  exaggerations.  The  casual  reader  might  per- 
haps infer,  therefore,  that  when  we  deal  with  actual  facts  and 
scientific  statistics,  we  shall  find  no  real  difficulties  to  be  solved. 

Such,  however,  is  not  the  view  of  the  writer.  To  his  think- 
ing there  is  a real  problem.  And  it  is  a difficult  one.  The 
agitators  see  it  in  a vague  way  but  they  do  not  understand  its 
real  nature.  The  remedies,  accordingly,  which  they  propose  for 
its  solution,  if  adopted,  would  not  only  fail  to  do  even  what  they 
desire,  but  would  on  the  contrary  aggravate  the  difficulty. 

THE  PRINCIPAL  FACTS 

1.  Japanese  population,  between  seventy  and  eighty  thou- 
sand in  number,  has  secured  a firm  economic  foothold  in  Cali- 
fornia. They  are  remarkably  industrious,  thrifty,  sober,  reliable, 
law-abiding  and  ambitious.  They  cooperate  effectively  among 
themselves  and  constitute  a compact  and  powerful  competition. 

2.  Large  numbers  of  them  live  in  agricultural  districts, 
where  they  constitute  in  many  cases  communities  largely  if  not 
exclusively,  Japanese.  The  white  land  owners  often  find  it 
economically  advantageous  to  sell  or  lease  to  them,  for  Japanese, 
by  their  intensive  cultivation,  can  afford  to  pay  high  prices 
for  land. 

3.  Living  so  largely  by  themselves,  Japanese  naturally  con- 
tinue the  standards  and  modes  of  life  in  which  they  were  reared. 
They  receive  relatively  little  American  influence.  From  the 
American  standpoint  many  of  their  native  habits  are  objection- 
able. They  habitually  work  on  Sunday ; overcrowd  their  dwell- 
ings; they  often  live  in  unsanitary  and  unsightly  conditions. 
Moreover,  so  many  of  the  women  work  on  the  land  that  they 
cannot  make  a proper  home  life  and  cannot  rear  the  children 
according  to  American  standards. 

4.  Social  relations  between  whites  and  Japanese  are  diffi- 
cult to  establish  and  maintain,  partly  because  of  mutual  ignor- 
ance of  each  other’s  language,  partly  because  the  standards  of 

18 


life  are  so  different,  partly  because  the  feeling  engendered  by 
economic  competition  is  unfriendly  and  partly  because  of  in- 
stinctive and  cultivated  race  prejudice. 

5.  Japanese  men,  like  European  men  (and  unlike  the 
Chinese)  have  brought  over  their  wives  and  children  in  unex- 
pected numbers,  so  that  we  have  thousands  of  American-born 
Japanese  children.  And  we  foresee  tens  of  thousand  more  in 
a few  decades.  These,  by  our  laws  are  American  citizens. 

6.  California  is  now  suddenly  awaking  to  the  situation  thus 
developing.  For  years  it  enjoyed  the  advantage  of  cheap,  docile, 
efficient,  Asiatic  labor.  No  small  part  of  her  prosperity  has 
been  made  possible  by  Chinese  and  Japanese  labor  on  railroad.s, 
roads  and  ranches.  California  is  now  discovering  that  Japanese 
labor  is  no  longer  cheap ; that  it  is  enterprising,  independent, 
able.  Japanese  like  every  new  immigrant  group  are  highly  re- 
productive. It  is  now  certain  that  we  shall  have  among  us  a 
permanent,  growing  and  efficient,  Japanese  population. 

7.  The  competition  of  whites  with  Asiatics  on  the  Pacific 
Coast  in  past  decades  has  resulted  in  the  denial  to  Asiatics  of 
the  privileges  of  naturalization  and  of  citizenship.  Of  all  immi- 
grants to  the  United  States  these  alone  have  been  thus  singled 
out  and  humiliated.  This  condition  has  tended  the  more  strongly 
to  segregate  them  as  a group  always  and  necessarily  un-Ameri- 
can. Being  “aliens  ineligible  for  citizenship”  they  have  been 
made  the  object  of  discriminatory  legislation,  both  local  and 
national. 

The  questions  arising  out  of  these  conditions,  according 
to  the  agitators,  are  these  ; 

(1.)  How  can  Japanese  immigration  be  completely 
stopped? 

(2.)  What  drastic  legislation  can  be  devised  to  prevent 
Japanese  from  becoming  real  or  virtual  land 
owners? 

(3.)  How  can  Japanese  be  eliminated  as  economic  com- 
petitors? 

(4.)  How  can  conditions  of  life  be  made  so  uncomfortable 
for  Japanese  as  to  lead  them  in  large  numbers  to 
return  to  their  native  land? 

The  avowed  purpose  of  the  proposed  legislation  is  to  secure 
these  ends.  Will  it?  This  is  our  next  question. 

A CRITICAL  ESTIMATE  OF  THE  ANTI- JAPANESE 
LEGISLATIVE  PROGRAM 

The  planks  of  the  program  proposed  by  the  California 
Oriental  Exclusion  League  have  already  been  given  (p.  6). 

The  First  Plank  proposes  to  cancel  the  “Gentlemen’s  Agree- 
ment.” This  proposal  is  based  on  the  charge  that  Japan  has 

19 


violated  that  Agreement.  Since  the  charge  is  not  substantiated, 
for  America  to  cancel  it  would  be  an  insult  to  Japan,  which 
America  as  a self-respecting  nation  could  not  afford  to  give. 
There  is  not,  therefore,  the  slightest  probability  that  Congress  or 
the  Department  of  State  will  do  what  the  agitators  desire.  We 
need  not  consider  what  Japan’s  response  mig'ht  be  to  such  an 
insult  if  it  were  given. 

Let  us  suppose,  however,  that  Congress  does  yield  to  the 
urgency  of  California  and  formally  cancels  the  Agreement,  what 
would  be  the  result  to  immigration?  The  first  result  would  be 
an  immediate  return  to  treaty  rights.  These  allow  mutual  free 
immigration — the  same  as  from  England  or  France.  Before 
cancelling  the  Gentlemen’s  Agreement  therefore,  some  substitute 
would  have  to  be  adopted.  What  would  it  be?  Is  it  thinkable 
that  any  new  treaty  could  be  negotiated  or  any  special  Japanese 
immigration  law  could  be  passed  by  Congress  that  would  refuse 
to  admit  to  the  United  States  the  wives  and  children  of  those 
Japanese  men  who  are  already  here?  Unless,  however,  such 
drastic  provisions  were  made  the  situation  under  the  new  treaty 
or  law  would  not  differ  from  that  which  now  exists  under  the 
“Gentlemen’s  Agreement.”  The  immigration  problem  would 
remain  unsolved,  even  if  the  proposed  “cancellation”  program 
were  adopted. 

The  Second  Plank  in  the  program  proposes  to  stop  the 
coming  of  “picture  brides.”  Since  the  Japanese  Government  has 
already  announced  that  it  will  no  longer  give  passports  to  “pic- 
ture brides”  this  second  plank  may  be  regarded  as  having  been 
secured.  The  agitators  may  perhaps  be  congratulating  them- 
selves on  this  achievement,  thinking  that  from  now  on  an  im- 
portant stream  of  immigration  has  been  stopped.  They  are 
doomed  to  disappointment  for  the  “picture  brides”  have  all  the 
time  constituted  only  a minor  portion  of  the  “wives”  admitted. 
Moreover,  it  is  still  open  to  any  Japanese  man  in  America  to 
go  to  Japan,  get  married  and  bring  his  wife  back  with  him. 
And  this  would  be  the  case  under  any  treaty  or  any  law  that 
would  be  at  all  likely  to  be  secured.  This  plank,  therefore, 
though  already  secured  will  have  little  real  aft’ect  on  the  problem 
to  be  solved.  It  will  not  help  secure  to  any  appreciable  degree 
any  of  the  objectives  of  the  agitators. 

The  Third  Plank  of  the  program — “vigorous  expulsion  of 
Japanese  immigrants” — assumes  that  many  have  been  coming 
in  through  Japanese  violation  of  the  Agreement.  If,  however, 
the  Agreement  has  been  faithfully  observed,  as  the  evidence 
abundantly  shows,  there  is  no  occasion  for  this  plank.  If  Japan 
by  her  own  action  has  been  vigorously  applying  the  Agreement 
to  all  laborers  seeking  to  go  to  Canada  and  to  Mexico  as  well  as 
to  the  United  States,  it  is  difficult  to  see  that  that  plank  makes 

20 


any  contribution  whatever  to  the  solution  of  the  problem  even 
as  the  agitators  see  it. 

No  reason  whatever  has  been  adduced  for  the  Fourth  Plank 
in  the  program — perpetual  exclusion  of  Asiatics  from  American 
citizenship.  Until  it  is  reasonably  shown  that  Asiatics,  merely 
because  they  are  Asiatics,  are  incapable  of  understanding,  ap- 
preciating and  admiring  the  ideals  of  democracy,  and  would  not 
become  loyal  citizens,  whatever  they  might  profess,  this  item  in 
the  program  can  hardly  be  counted  as  more  than  an  emotional 
expression  of  race  prejudice.  Moreover,  it  does  not  readily  ap- 
pear what  contribution  this  plank  would  make  to  the  solution 
of  the  problem,  for  it  would  have  no  effect  on  the  number  of 
Japanese  immigrants,  nor  on  the  number  of  babies  who  will  be 
born  here,  nor  on  the  industry  and  powers  of  mutual  cooperation 
of  those  Japanese  who  may  compete  with  whites  in  agriculture 
and  industry.  The  writer  fails  to  see  any  intelligible  purpose 
whatever  in  this  plank. 

The  Fifth  Plank  is  especially  objectionable — the  proposal  to 
deny  American  citizenship  to  every  American-born  child  “unless 
both  parents  are  of  a race  that  is  eligible  to  citizenship.”  This 
proposal  is  open  to  criticism  from  a number  of  points. 

1.  It  would  cause  endless  confusion.  There  are  already 
some  30,000  American-born  Japanese  children  in  America  who 
with  their  children  through  all  generations  will  be  American 
citizens.  No  law  can  work  retroactively  to  disqualify  them. 
Only  those  born  after  the  proposal  becomes  law  would  be  af- 
fected. We  would  then  have  two  groups  of  Japanese  (and 
Chinese) — one  group  consisting  of  citizens  possessing  all  its 
privileges  and  another  group,  for  many  decades  and  perhaps 
always  the  smaller  group,  consisting  of  those  who  would  be 
denied  these  rights  and  privileges.  They  would  be  the  objects 
of  drastic  economic  legislation  aimed  at  “aliens  ineligible  for 
citizenship.”  What  confusion ! And  what  possibilities  of  in- 
justice to  citizens  and  of  fraud  by  aliens!  Could  our  Govern- 
ment make  and  preserve  proper  birth  records  to  keep  the  two 
groups  distinct?  And  what  would  happen  in  case  of  marriage 
across  the  magic  line — to  which  group  would  the  offspring 
belong? 

2.  It  is  unjust.  It  proposes  to  cut  out  of  the  Constitution 
one  of  the  great  bulwarks  of  justice  for  all  classes  and  groups 
residing  in  America  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  all 
of  whom  are  entitled  to  the  “equal  protection  of  the  law.”  It  is 
a well  known  principle  that  in  a republic  any  class  permanently 
deprived  of  the  suffrage  is  exposed  to  danger.  They  can  be 
made  the  object  of  wrong-doing  and  have  no  natural  redress. 

3.  It  is  dangerous.  Such  a law  would  create  sharply  de- 
fined classes  of  aliens  among  us  permanently  and  necessarily 
obedient  to  foreign  governments.  American-born  children  born 

21 


hereafter  of  those  Japanese  who  are  not  American  citizens,  will 
of  course,  generation  after  generation  be  citizens  of  Japan.  Being 
born  here  not  only  their  economic  interests  would  be  here  but 
also  their  cultural.  They  would  understand  English  better  than 
Japanese.  They  would  be  completely  American  in  language, 
customs,  ideals.  But  they  would  necessarily  constitute  a grow- 
ing  group  whose  race-consciousness  and  resentment  would  be 
increasingly  developed  through  special  differential  treatment, 
always  humiliating  and  oftentimes  unjust.  On  the  ground  of 
their  not  being  eligible  to  citizenship,  economic  disabilities  of 
various  kinds  would  be  imposed  upon  them.  This  condition 
would  force  them  into  ever  closer  mutual  cooperation,  mutual 
sympathy  and  mutual  antipathy  to  the  white  race.  It  would 
keep  them  in  constant  dependence  on  their  alien  Government 
to  which  they  would  inevitably  turn  for  protection.  They  would 
constitute  closely  compacted  colonies  permanently  alien,  inevit- 
ably hostile  in  spirit  and  necessarily  obedient  to  an  alien  gov- 
ernment. Such  a situation  could  not  fail  to  deepen  the  chasm 
of  feeling  between  the  East  and  the  West. 

This  proposal,  therefore,  carried  into  effect,  would  aggravate 
the  very  evil  which  it  professes  to  solve,  and  California  would 
be  the  chief  immediate  sufferer  from  such  a policy. 

4.  It  is  un-American.  It  repudiates  a fundamental  Ameri- 
can principle,  well  justified  by  a century  of  American  experience, 
that  American-born  children,  whatever  their  ancestry  may  be, 
are  thorough-going  Americans.  America  ventured  on  a brand 
new  experiment  in  political  practice — she  claimed  as  her  own 
all  American-born  children  of  foreigners.  We  have  contended 
and  have  proven  our  contention,  that  those  who  are  born  and 
reared  here  in  our  American  institutions  catch  the  American 
spirit  of  freedom — share  in  the  American  pride  of  our  history 
and  loyally  fulfil  their  duties  as  citizens.  There  is  no  reason 
whatever  for  thinking  that  under  similar  friendly  treatment 
American-born  Japanese  will  not  make  the  same  response. 

5.  It  is  inhuman.  It  proposes  that  American-born  children 
shall  be  debarred  from  American  citizenship  even  though  one 
of  the  parents  is  white.  If  the  father  is  an  American  and  the 
mother  is  Japanese,  the  child  will  belong  to  no  country,  for  ac- 
cording to  Japanese  law  the  citizenship  of  both  the  mother  and 
the  child  follows  that  of  the  husband  and  father.  And  Japanese 
law  in  this  respect  is  identical  with  that  of  every  civilized  country 
including  the  United  States.  Our  laws  provide  that  a foreign 
woman  on  becoming  the  wife  of  an  American  citizen  becomes  an 
American  citizen  in  whatever  land  he  may  live  and  their  children 
are  American  citizens  in  whatever  foreign  land  they  may  be 
born.  The  proposed  amendment  would  reverse  this  universally 
recognized  principle  and  practice. 

6.  It  is  reactionary.  The  movement  of  the  times  is  toward 


22 


better,  freer  and  more  just  international  and  inter-racial  rela- 
tions. This  proposal  cuts  across  every  high  and  generous  im- 
pulse of  modern  international  life.  It  is  reactionary  also  because 
it  proposes  by  a constitutional  provision  to  deny  to  a certain 
class  of  people  merely  on  the  ground  of  race  the  “equal  protec- 
tion of  the  laws”  a provision  introduced  into  the  Constitution  at 
the  close  of  the  Civil  War  in  order  to  secure  better  justice  for 
all  classes  of  people  in  the  United  States. 

7.  It  is  futile.  Even  though  the  proposed  amendment  were 
passed,  it  would  not  solve  a single  one  of  the  difficulties  aimed 
at.  Its  promoters  propose  by  it  to  stop  Japanese  from  purchas- 
ing land.  But  it  would  not  do  even  that.  If  there  are  already, 
as  they  say,  25,000  American-born  Japanese  children  in  Cali- 
fornia, they  are  of  course  American  citizens.  They  and  their 
multiplying  children  and  children’s  children  ad  infinitum  will  be 
citizens  with  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  citizens.  The  pro- 
posed amendment  would  not  prevent  them  from  buying  land. 
The  real  purpose  of  the  proposal,  therefore,  would  not  be  at- 
tained. However  drastic  may  be  the  land  laws  enacted  to 
hamper  those  who  are  “ineligible  to  become  citizens,”  those  laws 
would  for  many  decades  affect  only  a minority  of  the  Japanese 
population  in  California. 

The  Sixth  Plank  fathered  by  Mr.  McClatchy  and  urged  by 
many  Californians,  if  not  by  the  League,  is  to  bring  from  China 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  Chinese  coolies.  Mr.  Selden,  of  the 
“New  York  Times,”  writing  recently  from  California  says  that 
they  want  a million ! It  is  not  proposed  that  they  bring  their 
wives,  nor  that  they  be  Americanized  and  become  citizens — by 
no  means.  What  is  wanted  is  cheap,  docile,  controlled,  Asiatic 
labor,  men  who  have  no  ambitions  for  homes,  children,  education 
and  opportunity. 

If  this  program  is  carried  out  there  will  develop  on  the 
Pacific  Coast  a situation  in  many  respects  not  unlike  that  which 
developed  in  the  South  a century  ago  through  the  importation 
of  negro  slave  labor.  Once  the  system  is  effectually  started,  it 
will  be  found  impossible  to  get  rid  of  Asiatic  labor.  California 
will  become  increasingly  dependent  upon  it.  We  shall  have  a 
capitalistic,  aristocratic,  white  class  exploiting  Chinese  labor  in 
the  development  of  California’s  vast  natural  resources,  a large 
un-Americanized,  Chinese  speaking,  poorly  paid  working  class, 
and  a large  class  of  “poor  whites”  who  are  too  proud  or  too 
weak  to  work  with  or  like  the  Chinese  and  who,  lacking  owner- 
ship of  the  land  and  without  capital,  cannot  exploit  cheap 
Chinese  labor. 

The  social,  economic,  political  and  racial  problems  that 
would  surely  emerge  under  such  conditions  can  be  easily  fore- 
seen. 

This  proposal  also  is  absolutely  un-American  and  dangerous. 

23 


Its  proponents  are  amazingly  blind  to  the  real  nature  of  their 
program.  In  their  anti-Japanese  animosity,  they  are  advocating 
a plan  that  is  intrinsically  far  more  dangerous  than  the  present 
Japanese  problem. 

In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  critical  study  of  the  program 
for  drastic  legislation,  we  are  not  justified  in  the  conclusion 
that  none  of  their  planks  would  to  any  appreciable  degree  secure 
the  ends  desired  by  the  agitators?  Indeed,  the  writer  sees  no 
solution  whatever  along  the  line  of  repressive  and  segregative, 
economic  and  racial  legislation,  however  drastic  it  may  be.  The 
more  such  a policy  is  followed  the  more  bitter  will  become  the 
mutual  relations  of  the  whites  and  the  Japanese.  The  real  prob- 
lem will  become  more  serious  and  a real  solution  more  difficult. 

A POSSIBLE  SOLUTION 

So  far  as  the  writer  can  see  there  are  only  two  possible 
methods  for  solving  the  California  Japanese  problem  that  have 
any  promise  of  success. 

The  first  is  mentioned  as  a whimsical  suggestion — scarcely 
needing  serious  attention.  It  is  the  one  and  only  method,  how- 
ever, that  will  secure  what  the  agitators  desire.  It  is  a financial 
method.  There  are  in  California  approximately  50,000  adult 
Japanese.  If  the  State  should  offer  to  pay  each  adult  Japanese 
who  leaves  the  country  permanently  the  sum  of  $2,000,  the  total 
expense  would  be  approximately  $100,000,000;  and  if  in  addition 
the  Japanese  owners  of  farms  were  offered  twice  the  value  of 
their  land,  the  expense  might  be  perhaps  $60,000,000.  Under  the 
inducement  of  this  bonus  plan  practically  all  Japanese  of  the 
working,  agricultural  and  small  trader  classes  would  return  to 
Japan  quite  promptly.  To  be  sure  many  wealthy  landlords  would 
be  suddenly  impoverished ; there  would  be  severe  farm  labor 
shortage  and  shortage  of  berries  and  garden  supplies  for  some 
years;  and  Mexicans  would  swarm  in  to  fill  the  gap.  But  Cali- 
fornia would  be  rid  of  her  “Japanese  menace.”  Of  course 
Japanese  laborers  from  other  states  would  flock  to  California 
and  seek  the  bonus.  It  is  safe  to  say,  however,  that  an  expendi- 
ture of  from  four  to  five  hundred  million  dollars  would  pretty 
effectually  do  the  trick.  The  value  which  Japanese  have  already 
contributed  to  the  State,  however,  is  considerable  and  this 
amount  ($500,000,000)  might  well  be  paid  to  get  them  out,  if 
they  are  in  fact  the  menace  alleged. 

A GENUINE  SOLUTION 

If  the  policy  of  drastic  legislation  is  not  only  futile  but 
positively  dangerous,  and  if  the  policy  of  deportation  by  gen- 
erous bonus  payments  is  quite  impracticable,  we  must  find  a 
solution  along  some  other  line.  The  remaining  alternative 

24 


would  seem  to  be  a policy  of  Americanization,  a policy  of  mutual 
education  and  reconciliation. 

A genuine  and  permanent  solution  is  necessarily  psycho- 
logical and  moral  though  it  should  also  include  a legislative 
factor.  Two  programs  of  education  are  needed,  one  for  Japanese 
and  one  for  Americans.  The  first  would  seek  by  friendly  in- 
struction and  helpfulness  to  show  Japanese  how  Americans  live, 
what  our  ideals  and  economic  standards  are  and  how  earnestly 
we  desire  to  have  all  foreigners  who  plan  to  stay  permanently 
in  America  learn  our  language  and  adopt  our  good  ways  as 
rapidly  as  possible — not.  however,  abandoning  their  own  good 
customs,  and  participate  in  supporting  our  democratic  institu- 
tions. The  rights  and  the  duties  of  citizens  would  be  fully  ex- 
plained to  them  and  they  would  be  invited,  in  case  they  plan 
to  stay  permanently  in  America,  to  qualify  and  become  citizens. 
It  would  introduce  Japanese  to  Americans  and  urge  them  to  live 
here  in  mutual  helpfulness,  fair  play  and  goodwill.  Especial 
attention  would  be  given  to  the  education  of  Japanese  children, 
making  them  feel  that  they  too  are  Americans. 

The  program  for  Americans  would  seek  to  give  them  the 
real  facts  of  the  situation.  Falsehoods  or  even  half  truths  about 
the  Japanese  would  be  steadily  discredited  and  exposed.  Steps 
would  be  taken  to  promote  a spirit  of  such  helpfulness,  coopera- 
tion and  treatment  as  would  commend  to  the  strangers  from 
Asia  the  essentials  of  the  Christian  religion.  Facts  as  to  methods 
and  processes  that  have  been  successful  in  harmonizing  Japanese 
and  Americans  would  be  widely  reported,  such  as  those  that 
have  been  so  successful  at  Livingston. 

A legislative  program  is  also  important.  The  number  of 
Japanese  and  Chinese  who  might  be  admitted  as  immigrants 
should  of  course  continue  to  be  carefully  regulated.  All  those 
who  are  lawfully  here  should  be  given  equal  treatment  with  that 
accorded  to  every  other  group  of  foreigners  and  aliens  among 
us.  Laws  that  conflict  with  treaty  obligations  should  be  re- 
pealed. Standards  for  naturalization  should  be  raised  and  all 
who  duly  qualify  for  citizenship  and  desire  to  be  naturalized 
should  be  granted  this  privilege,  just  as  it  is  granted  to  indi- 
viduals of  every  other  continent.  All  radically  discriminatory 
and  therefore  humiliating  laws  should  be  repealed. 

In  order  to  overcome  particular  abuses,  laws  may  be  needed 
to  prevent  unfair  combinations  in  restraint  of  trade,  unnecessary 
Sunday  work,  excessive  hours  of  labor,  or  unsanitary  or  immoral 
living  conditions.  Legislation  fitted  to  prevent  the  development 
of  congested  areas  of  a single  people  or  race  may  also  be  de- 
sirable. 

Laws  forbidding  the  purchase  hereafter  of  agricultural  lands 
by  any  aliens,  not  even  in  the  names  of  their  minor  children 
may  perhaps  be  desirable.  This  would  be  a powerful  incentive 

25 


to  citizenship.  Surely  aliens  who  plan  for  permanent  life  in 
America  as  is  indicated  by  purchase  of  farm  lands,  should  be 
American  citizens.  All  such  laws  should  of  course  be  general 
and  apply  equally  to  all  aliens  and  all  peoples. 

Such  a policy  as  this,  followed  out  constantly  for  thirty 
years  would  gradually  solve  the  Japanese  problem  in  an  Ameri- 
can and  Christian  way.  American-born  Japanese  under  such 
conditions  would  absorb  American  ideals,  modes  of  life  and 
standards  of  labor.  The  strenuous,  economic  competition  now 
complained  of  would  gradually  vanish  as  the  Americanized  chil- 
dren take  the  place  of  their  foreign-born  parents.  These  chil- 
dren would  be  as  characteristically  American  as  the  American- 
born  children  of  any  other  foreign  people.  Sunday  labor  would 
automatically  cease  and  also  the  agricultural  labor  of  wives. 

The  foregoing  moral,  educational  and  legislative  program 
for  solving  the  Japanese  problem  on  the  Pacific  Coast  appears  to 
the  writer  to  be  the  only  one  in  which  there  is  the  least  hope  of 
success.  Its  weakness  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  is  neither  sensa- 
tional nor  “political,”  nor  will  it  secure  immediate  results. 

The  policies  proposed,  however,  by  the  California  Oriental 
Exclusion  League  can  secure  no  salutary  results  whatever.  They 
will  only  aggravate  the  situation.  The  Japanese  are  here  with 
their  wives  and  children,  and  they  are  going  to  stay.  How 
is  California  going  to  deal  with  them?  In  a spirit  of  bitter 
condemnation,  twisted  statistics,  distorted  half  truths,  and  in- 
creasingly obnoxious  and  economically  discriminatory  legisla- 
tion aimed  at  “aliens  ineligible  for  citizenship.”  Such  a spirit 
and  such  laws  will  produce  only  increasing  mutual  animosity. 
This  is  no  solution.  The  only  alternative  would  seem  to  be 
the  one  here  urged. 

THE  CALIFORNIA  AGITATION  AND  JAPANESE 
MILITARISM 

California’s  anti-Japanese  agitators  are  no  doubt  sincere  in 
the  desire  to  drive  Japanese  out  of  the  United  States.  That 
they  are  subsidized  by  Japanese  militarists  is  suggested  by  no 
one.  Yet  as  a matter  of  fact.  Senator  Phelan,  Congressman 
Raker,  Mr.  McClatchy  and  their  co-agitators  are  playing  into 
the  hands  of  Japanese  militarists  as  effectively  as  if  they  were 
in  the  latters  employ  and  were  deliberately  cooperating  with 
them. 

Japanese  militarists  could  adopt  no  more  astute  policy  for 
the  attainment  of  their  ends  in  China  and  in  the  whole  Far 
East  than  secretly  to  subsidize  just  such  men  in  America  and 
keep  them  on  their  job  until  they  have  secured  all  the  humiliat- 
ing, discriminatory,  and  drastic  legislation  they  are  urging.  For 
the  success  of  the  anti-Japanese  agitation  in  America  will  exert 

26 


a powerful  influence  on  the  success  of  the  militaristic  program  of 
Japan  in  East  Asia.  This  plays  directly  into  the  hands  of  the 
most  dangerous  and  unscrupulous  elements  in  Japan.  It  gives 
Japanese  militarism  the  most  cogent  arguments  it  could  possibly 
have  for  promoting  anti-American  feeling  in  Japan  and  for  justi- 
fying to  their  own  people  their  past  and  their  future  policies 
of  imperial  aggression  in  Korea,  Manchuria  and  China. 

Anti-Japanese  agitators  will  no  doubt  scoff  at  this  argument, 
for  they  regard  themselves  as  true  and  zealous  patriots,  con- 
cerned only  with  the  safety  and  welfare  of  America.  No  doubt 
they  are  so  in  heart,  but  their  logic  is  faulty  and  their  vision  is 
short.  They  do  not  seem  to  understand  the  relation  of  cause 
and  effect  in  international  and  inter-racial  affairs. 

The  great  American  public,  however,  should  not  be  led 
astray  by  blind  leaders,  however  patriotic  they  may  emotionally 
be.  In  the  lurid  light  of  the  recent  world  tragedy,  the  causes 
that  produce  great  conflicts  have  become  quite  plain.  Let 
America  most  carefully  avoid  them.  If  America  desires  to  walk 
in  the  ways  of  peace  and  good  neighborliness  with  the  Orient 
she  must  chose  those  principles  and  policies  and  those  courses 
of  action  which  will  have  the  desired  results. 

CONCLUSION 

The  great  world  problem  of  the  coming  century  is  that 
arising  from  the  contact  of  the  White  and  Yellow  races.  Shall 
it  be  a contact  of  bitterness,  hostility,  unfairness  and  untruth  in 
speech  and  act?  Or  shall  it  be  a contact  of  truthfulness  of 
word  and  deed,  of  dogged  determination  to  be  kindly  and  help- 
ful and  considerate?  Shall  we  seek  war?  Or  shall  we  seek 
peace?  The  answer  is  still  in  our  hands.  We  can  create  hostile 
foes  by  the  hundred  million  among  our  neighbors  across  the 
Pacific,  or  we  can  win  them  to  friendship — according  as  our 
treatment  of  those  among  us  on  the  Pacific  Coast  is  hostile  or 
Christian. 

If  we  desire  to  keep  Asia  friendly  we  must  be  friendly  our- 
selves. We  must  get  rid  of  our  humiliating  anti-Asiatic  legisla- 
tion. We  must  give  to  every  Asiatic  lawfully  in  the  United 
States  the  very  same  treatment  including  opportunity  for  citizen- 
ship that  we  give  to  every  other  people,  including  Turks,  Syrians, 
Persians,  Russian  Tartars,  Mexicans,  Zulus,  Hottentots  and 
Kaffirs.  This  alone  is  in  fundamental  harmony  with  the  spirit 
and  principles  of  our  Republic  and  our  Constitution.  This  alone 
is  the  course  required  by  the  Golden  Rule.  This  alone  can  over- 
come the  Japanese  “menace”  in  California.  This  alone  can  lay 
right  foundations  for  permanent  peace  between  the  Far  East  and 
the  Far  West. 


27 


